[arin-ppml] what is a host?

[Loki Jorgenson]

  Thanks for your responses, Ted and Owen and Bill - great intro for me 
to the list.

The suggestions aside, my main point was that the terms used should be 
unambiguous so that there can be no "scamming of resources" via 
"semantic word games".  The IETF usage (i.e. RFC4294) as standard would 
be a fine example.  Not sure yet what the traditions are in this forum 
with regard to implicit or explicit adoption of references.

On 10-09-10 9:00 AM, arin-ppml-request at arin.net wrote:
>   
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:29:57 -0700
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] What is a "host"?
> Message-ID:<4C8927A5.1080202 at ipinc.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> In my opinion anything on a network that UNIQUELY receives or
> sends data is a "host" even if it requires multiple IP addresses
> to do it.
>
> If a sensor on a refrigerator does this then it's a host, even if
> it's behind a firewall.  If the sensor only sends data to a master
> control computer in the refrigerator then it still is a host - it's just
> only a host in the context of the little tiny network within the
> refrigerator.
>
> If a webserver has virtual servers on it then those servers are hosts,
> as is the webserver that those servers are contained in.  If a webserver
> merely has some virtual websites then those websites are not hosts,
> because if you access them your still talking to the same master control
> operating system.  I realize this sounds odd but look at it this way.  I
> could setup a server with a virtual server in the server. I can then
> launch an attack on the server -from- the virtual server and compromise
> the server, even though the virtual was not compromised.
>
> A router that spends most of it's time forwarding packets is also
> a host because you can telnet into it.  So is a smart ethernet bridge,
> or a managed switch.  A dumb switch is NOT a host.
>
> As for so called "cloud" computing, a "cloud" is a host, as are the
> elements in a cloud - if those can send and receive unique data.
>
> I do not believe that the term host is problematic or ill defined.  I
> DO believe that there are a lot of people running around out there
> who have axes to grind who would like to replace "host" with something
> else.  I also believe there are people who have a vested interest in
> some semantic wordgame with the term to try and scam resources that they
> aren't entitled to.
>
> The term "host" came out of the Unix world and Microsoft has been
> involved in a decades long campaign to wipe out usage of any term that
> carries a Unix connotation.  That is why they invented terms like
> "Domain Controller" when they meant NetBIOS Name Server, and terms like
> Active Directory when they meant Network Information Service (AKA Yellow
> Pages)  They want to make the unwary think that they have created
> something new and original rather than ripping-off older ideas that
> Novell had developed, who in turn ripped them off from even older
> ideas that Sun had developed.  Apple is famous for doing this as well.
>
> We also have Google and others who have begun to see the marketing
> advantages of these kinds of semantic wordgames.
>
> For further reading I would encourage you to read the book "1984"
> by George Orwell.  It contains an excellent description of how to
> control something by redefining words. You can also look up the
> numerous publications of the worlds major religions which do the
> same thing.
>
> Ted
>
>
> On 9/9/2010 10:50 AM, Loki Jorgenson wrote:
>> Pardon for butting in mid-conversation - but this particular bit of
>> semantics has aggravated us before and so it is topical.
>>
>> "Host" tends to be rather over-loaded semantically and in general has
>> connotation that ties it to a physical or virtual machine. It will
>> likely be problematic if you don't get your key terms defined,
>> particularly as it appears in policy and will need to be interpreted.
>> "Host" doesn't map well to IP addresses except in the simplest case. And
>> in an increasingly sensor network, mobile, and cloud-based world, this
>> won't fit well.
>>
>> Alternately, I could suggest something like "node" (or "network node")
>> and subsequently "node IP end-point" or "IP node" or "IP end-point".
>> Here "end" relates to a point-to-point IP connection, not an end-to-end
>> network path. Sensors (and anything else with an address) then are
>> simply IP nodes (or comprise at least one IP node). A host then may have
>> a plurality of IP nodes (either physical or virtual).
>>
>> NOTE: I haven't looked closely at the document - I'm still catching up
>> having just joined the list.
>>
>>
-- 
Loki Jorgenson
ljorgenson at inetco.com
INETCO Systems
(604) 908-5833